SCOTUS Reverses Itself - Online Buyers Must Pay Sale Tax 2 2

[jcjames]

Quote

High Court: Online shoppers can be forced to pay sales tax

The Supreme Court says states can force online shoppers to pay sales tax.

The 5-4 ruling Thursday is a win for states, who said they were losing out on billions of dollars annually under two decades-old Supreme Court decisions that impacted online sales tax collection.

The high court ruled Thursday to overturn those decisions. They had resulted in some companies not collecting sales tax on every online purchase. The cases the court overturned said that if a business was shipping a product to a state where it didn’t have a physical presence such as a warehouse or office, the business didn’t have to collect the state’s sales tax. Customers were generally supposed to pay the tax to the state themselves if they don’t get charged it, but the vast majority didn’t.

...

In addition to being a win for states, the ruling is also a win for large retailers, who argued the physical presence rule was unfair. Retailers including Apple, Macy’s, Target and Walmart, which have brick-and-mortar stores nationwide, generally collect sales tax from their customers who buy online. That’s because they typically have a physical store in whatever state the purchase is being shipped to. Amazon.com, with its network of warehouses, also collects sales tax in every state that charges it, though third party sellers who use the site to sell goods don’t have to.

But sellers that only have a physical presence in a single state or a few states could avoid charging customers sales tax when they’re shipping to addresses outside those states. Online sellers that don’t charge sales tax on goods shipped to every state range from jewelry website Blue Nile to pet products site Chewy.com to clothing retailer L.L. Bean. Sellers who use eBay and Etsy, which provide platforms for smaller sellers, also aren’t required to collect sales tax nationwide.

Hard to tell if this would affect regular Feebay sellers, or even regular sellers on forums like this? 

Thoughts?

 

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by jcjames

[comicwiz]

I'm sorry, but I will NEVER understand the reason why used goods need to be taxed more than once. I know it would open a huge can of worms for higher priced items such as home resale's, or used vehicles, but the tax regime usually structures itself around providing a "goods service." What service is being provided for an online transaction, when there's no middle-man other than shipper?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I would suggest reading the SCOTUS Decision. The brief outline above is very misleading, concerning the Decision. Congress has to fix this, first and foremost. States have to review their individual practices, to consider the impact of their application of the tax as it now stands, vs. the South Dakota position.

It ain't over until it is over. It is not a matter of used goods. That is over simplifying, I think.

[jcjames]

11 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I would suggest reading the SCOTUS Decision. The brief outline above is very misleading, concerning the Decision. Congress has to fix this, first and foremost. States have to review their individual practices, to consider the impact of their application of the tax as it now stands, vs. the South Dakota position.

It ain't over until it is over. It is not a matter of used goods. That is over simplifying, I think.

In the SCOTUS ruling, the South Dakota law that was upheld was said to apply "only to sellers that, on an annual basis, deliver more than $100,000 of
goods or services into the State or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery of goods or services into the State."

Wouldn't Ebay easily fall under that category?

 

 

 

[revat]

2 minutes ago, jcjames said:

17 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I would suggest reading the SCOTUS Decision. The brief outline above is very misleading, concerning the Decision. Congress has to fix this, first and foremost. States have to review their individual practices, to consider the impact of their application of the tax as it now stands, vs. the South Dakota position.

It ain't over until it is over. It is not a matter of used goods. That is over simplifying, I think.

In the SCOTUS ruling, the South Dakota law that was upheld was said to apply "only to sellers that, on an annual basis, deliver more than $100,000 of
goods or services into the State or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery of goods or services into the State."

Wouldn't Ebay easily fall under that category?

Probably, but I could forsee a situation where Ebay sues over the definition of 'seller'

[bc]

17 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I would suggest reading the SCOTUS Decision. The brief outline above is very misleading, concerning the Decision. Congress has to fix this, first and foremost. States have to review their individual practices, to consider the impact of their application of the tax as it now stands, vs. the South Dakota position.

It ain't over until it is over. It is not a matter of used goods. That is over simplifying, I think.

Please don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, I would miss your posts in the Water Cooler.

If dealers already have to pay sales tax on revenue (mainly used goods) from conventions,  I don't see many states waiting too long before they want in on this new money pipeline.

-bc

 

[blazingbob]

Since I do not have a physical location in 50 states and only collect sales tax in NY you now have to multiply by 50 and to know 50 different states rules on when to collect or not collect sales tax.

I do collect sales tax at the conventions.  

Dumping this onto the states is not a good thing.  If the Supreme Court overruled this it should have one rule for the entire country as far as when to collect online sales tax or not.  

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by blazingbob

[revat]

2 minutes ago, blazingbob said:

Since I do not have a physical location in 50 states and only collect sales tax in NY you now have to multiply by 50 and to know 50 different states rules on when to collect or not collect sales tax.

I do collect sales tax at the conventions.  

Dumping this onto the states is not a good thing.  If the Supreme Court overruled this it should have one rule for the entire country as far as when to collect online sales tax or not.  

 

It seems to me like the ruling is at least somewhat intended to force congress into addressing the issue, otherwise chaos will reign throughout the land and small/medium businesses will be crushed under the weight of compliance.

[jcjames]

8 minutes ago, revat said:

It seems to me like the ruling is at least somewhat intended to force congress into addressing the issue, otherwise chaos will reign throughout the land and small/medium businesses will be crushed under the weight of compliance.

Amazon lobbyists would be okay with that.

[JohnnyR]

Very, few sellers on these boards, or ebay for that matter would be affected by this law.  Large online retailers are the target of this decision. Ebay is not the seller, the seller is the seller.

Edited June 21, 2018 by JohnnyR

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

34 minutes ago, jcjames said:

In the SCOTUS ruling, the South Dakota law that was upheld was said to apply "only to sellers that, on an annual basis, deliver more than $100,000 of
goods or services into the State or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery of goods or services into the State."

Wouldn't Ebay easily fall under that category?

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

25 minutes ago, bc said:

Please don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, I would miss your posts in the Water Cooler.

If dealers already have to pay sales tax on revenue (mainly used goods) from conventions,  I don't see many states waiting too long before they want in on this new money pipeline.

-bc

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

9 minutes ago, jcjames said:

Amazon lobbyists would be okay with that.

Especially since they already comply with those States that have enacted legislation.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

6 minutes ago, JohnnyR said:

Very, few sellers on these boards, or ebay for that matter would be affected by this law.  Large online retailers are the target of this decision. Ebay is not the seller, the seller is the seller.

That is not a bet I would be willing to accept.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

30 minutes ago, revat said:

It seems to me like the ruling is at least somewhat intended to force congress into addressing the issue, otherwise chaos will reign throughout the land and small/medium businesses will be crushed under the weight of compliance.

[revat]

10 minutes ago, jcjames said:

20 minutes ago, revat said:

It seems to me like the ruling is at least somewhat intended to force congress into addressing the issue, otherwise chaos will reign throughout the land and small/medium businesses will be crushed under the weight of compliance.

Amazon lobbyists would be okay with that.

I think they've been prepping for this, and developing the softwares to make collecting and reporting these taxes easier for online vendros, which they can now sell/license and profit from. 

[darkstar]

14 minutes ago, JohnnyR said:

Very, few sellers on these boards, or ebay for that matter would be affected by this law.  Large online retailers are the target of this decision. Ebay is not the seller, the seller is the seller.

I must have missed the part where the decision states that the implementation of online sales tax will only be applied to large online retailers. 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

3 minutes ago, darkstar said:

I must have missed the part where the decision states that the implementation of online sales tax will only be applied to large online retailers. 

[bc]

Speaking strictly about the impact on comic collecting - Will this promote more selling thru Craigslist/Facebook or other old-school private person-to-person venues? I realize they can't attract the masses the way a formal online presence could....I can see the Wanted To Buy forum growing and the For Sale forum shrinking....(Note to self : order more checks and buy stamps).

Do our fellow collectors in non-sales tax states have a new opportunity?

(Not encouraging tax evasion, but we Americans are some of the best scammers loop-hole exploiters in the world and I think this is already happening anyway).

-bc

[jaybuck43]

1 hour ago, jcjames said:

Hard to tell if this would affect regular Feebay sellers, or even regular sellers on forums like this? 

Thoughts?

 

 

Having to pay sales tax hasn't changed.  If you buy a book on the boards, you pay sales tax.  Just because the seller doesn't take the tax from you and pay it on your behalf, doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it (there's a box for it on your tax returns )  The holding means that states can compel companies to HOLD sales tax for you, even if they don't have a physical presence in the state.  But you were ALWAYS supposed to file it on your taxes.